The nation’s Catholic bishops released the following statement in response to Obama’s announcement today that he is revising his pro-abortion HHS mandate.

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

‘The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

‘Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

The Obama administration’s revisions to the birth control/abortion-causing drug mandate are not meeting with support from pro-life advocates, who say the president’s claims that it is a compromise that respects religious conscience issues is a sham. But leading pro-abortion groups are delighted. On the other hand, pro-abortion groups, including the Planned Parenthood abortion business have offered glowing praise.

The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

That coverage will not only include free contraception but birth control and drugs like ella or the morning after pill that may cause abortions in some cases.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates have been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its unconstitutional mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

Bishops across the country have spoken out against the mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.

“We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.”

Responding to the announcement, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

“To force Americans to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. . . It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom,” he added.

The mandate is so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”

The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.

As a strong believer in the US Constitution, I am appalled by this decision by the Dictator Wannabe. If the government is allowed to dictate to religions that they must compromise their beliefs, what will they be mandating next? This reminds me of the Nazi era poem, "First they came...". In this case, it is the Catholics. Perhaps, the First Wookie, Mooochelle Obama, will now demand that Jew and Muslim schools serve pork for lunch as part of her healthy eating initiative. Where will it end? After that, The Narcissist In Chief may declare that he can kill American citizens at will. Oh wait.....

A line must be drawn in the sand, and even as an atheist, I stand with the Catholics. If Chairman Maobama can destroy religious freedom in this country, he can destroy anything. For those who support this pathetic Marxist freakshow, who's gonna speak out for you once he decides to come after you too? Afterall, I can guarantee that you're nothing more than "useful idiots" to him. I've seen this movie before and it doesn't have a happy ending.

_________________

February 11th, 2012, 2:01 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom

We won't have to put up with him much longer. He'll be voted out.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

As a strong believer in the US Constitution, I am appalled by this decision by the Dictator Wannabe. If the government is allowed to dictate to religions that they must compromise their beliefs, what will they be mandating next?

So you think that Mormons should be entitled to practice polygamy?

That Muslims should be entitled to practice tenants of sharia law, including stoning people for adultery etc?

Religion is not a free pass to do whatever you want.

Which is not to say that the current position on health insurance is acceptable. Just that your trite view (placing any restrictions on religion equates to dictatorship and naziism) is overly simplistic.

February 13th, 2012, 6:13 am

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9967Location: Dallas

Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom

I read a survey recently in the NY Times that said 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control and over half of all Catholics support Obama's plan.

So Sly you are standing with the Catholic Bishops and not most Catholic followers.

As soon as the Obama regime decrees that satanic human sacrifices of people named UK Lion and Pablo are allowed, I bet you guys change your tune real quick.

All jokes aside, you guys are missing the point. As an atheist, I don't agree with most of the things that religious folks do, but I recognize their right to do them. Adding polygamy or stoning into the mix is a non starter since they have been illegal (stoning) or atleast considered unacceptable (polygamy) in this country since it's founding. A ruling by the Supreme Court in the late 1800's reaffirmed that polygamy wasn't permitted after the practice became popular amongst Mormons. The same thing would hold true regarding genital mutilation by Muslims despite there being no law on the books concerning the ritual. The same thing can not be said about providing contraceptives by Catholic leaders. Keep in mind that this does not prevent Catholic followers from using them, or from eating meat on Fridays during Lent.

The issue is the government ordering church leaders to do something that goes against their faith. This is unacceptable and violates the principle of the separation of church and state. Knowing the left as I do, this will only be their first step in their war against religion. Soon, they will mandate that churches must marry homosexuals, women can become priests, and men can become nuns. Those beliefs, customs, and traditions have been in place for longer than the USA has been a country and the government has no right to dictate to any religion how they practice their faith. Furthermore, if the members of the congregation don't agree with the church's beliefs, they have every right to leave and join another religion. That is the people's choice, not the government's.

We've already seen the assault on Freedom of Speech from both the left and the right. The religious right wants to ban porn and obscene behavior, while the left champions political correctness. Both are wrong. If the Obama regime succeeds with it's war on religion, a war on political speech won't be too far behind. There's already talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and the Obama Campaign just started a potentially 2 million strong "Truth Team". The only thing they're missing are the brown shirts and the "Hope and Change" arm bands. The assault on the Freedom of Press has already begun with the Obama regime coordination with Media Matters and it will only get worse. Last but not least, if Obama wins a second term, there are strong indications that he plans to attack the 2nd Amendment. It appears that Fast and Furious was a means to that end, but he's just getting started.

Be careful what you wish for Obamabots, you just might get it. As I mentioned earlier, the poem, "First they came" immediately comes to mind.

_________________

February 14th, 2012, 12:30 am

njroar

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3229

Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom

If you can overlook contraception for a second, which isn't a fundamental right and isn't being withheld from anyone, you're missing the gorilla in the room. Safe sex won't ever be argued, even though the Catholic church has its beliefs, but abortion still is the key here. The biggest item on that list of things this includes is the morning after pill. You can argue that it doesn't equate to abortion, but that's what its always been classified as.

And if you want to argue the validity of believing that life begins with the fetus, refer back to your posts about the one celled organisms and individual cells that are being classified as the roots of life on other planets. Why is one argued as life in one instance and disregarded in the other?

This is a simple overstepping of the Establishment clause of the first amendment. Sly's already pointed out the obvious illegal activity. No one is being denied contraceptives. This isn't an issue with people having something withheld, its an issue with the government mandating that people have to act against their conscience.

Thank you, njroar. It's not about contraception, it's about religious freedom. If that's eliminated, what's next under an overbearing government? Freedom of speech? A right to a fair trial? Where does it end?

Atleast I have my dog, my guns, and my military training. I can move to northern Michigan and survive in the woods when all hell breaks loose. Can you?

its an issue with the government mandating that people have to act against their conscience.

I agree. And this is an issue that comes up time and time again. It's an issue the US government faced in the 1800s (Mormonism and polgymy) and decided that it could mandate that people go against their conscience. Sly gives that one a free pass, apparently on the argument that "it was a long time ago".

So it appears we have the sly general principle that "governments must not interfere in religious life at all (and if they do so they are the equivalent of Nazis), unless they started doing so a long time ago (in which case it is absolutely fine and dandy)". Which doesn't seem like a great principle to me.

Personally, I think that there is a balance to be struck. I think government should only interfere with religious life where there is an incredibly compelling case to do (polygamy, or stoning, being a couple of examples). I think that this Obama directive falls the wrong side of that line - I don't think that there is that compelling case.

But I think the argument that "any interference whatsoever = wrong" is overly simplistic, and the argument that "any interference whatsover = akin to naziism" is just trying to score cheap political points.

Thank you, njroar. It's not about contraception, it's about religious freedom. If that's eliminated, what's next under an overbearing government? Freedom of speech? A right to a fair trial? Where does it end?

As soon as the Obama regime decrees that satanic human sacrifices of people named UK Lion and Pablo are allowed, I bet you guys change your tune real quick.

All jokes aside, you guys are missing the point. As an atheist, I don't agree with most of the things that religious folks do, but I recognize their right to do them. Adding polygamy or stoning into the mix is a non starter since they have been illegal (stoning) or atleast considered unacceptable (polygamy) in this country since it's founding. A ruling by the Supreme Court in the late 1800's reaffirmed that polygamy wasn't permitted after the practice became popular amongst Mormons. The same thing would hold true regarding genital mutilation by Muslims despite there being no law on the books concerning the ritual. The same thing can not be said about providing contraceptives by Catholic leaders. Keep in mind that this does not prevent Catholic followers from using them, or from eating meat on Fridays during Lent.

The issue is the government ordering church leaders to do something that goes against their faith. This is unacceptable and violates the principle of the separation of church and state. Knowing the left as I do, this will only be their first step in their war against religion. Soon, they will mandate that churches must marry homosexuals, women can become priests, and men can become nuns. Those beliefs, customs, and traditions have been in place for longer than the USA has been a country and the government has no right to dictate to any religion how they practice their faith. Furthermore, if the members of the congregation don't agree with the church's beliefs, they have every right to leave and join another religion. That is the people's choice, not the government's.

We've already seen the assault on Freedom of Speech from both the left and the right. The religious right wants to ban porn and obscene behavior, while the left champions political correctness. Both are wrong. If the Obama regime succeeds with it's war on religion, a war on political speech won't be too far behind. There's already talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and the Obama Campaign just started a potentially 2 million strong "Truth Team". The only thing they're missing are the brown shirts and the "Hope and Change" arm bands. The assault on the Freedom of Press has already begun with the Obama regime coordination with Media Matters and it will only get worse. Last but not least, if Obama wins a second term, there are strong indications that he plans to attack the 2nd Amendment. It appears that Fast and Furious was a means to that end, but he's just getting started.

Be careful what you wish for Obamabots, you just might get it. As I mentioned earlier, the poem, "First they came" immediately comes to mind.

First, I'm not an Obama supporter. Second, this isn't an issue of "separation of church and state" as far as I'm concerned and that phrase does not exist in the Constitution anyways (which you obviously know as a strong supporter of said document). The government is not telling people what they can or cannot believe.

Third, it does matter if you like it or not (and I for one don't), but abortion is legal (Roe v Wade 1973) and has been for a long time. Fourth, as I've pointed out the vast majority of Catholics don't follow the Church's edict towards birth control anyways.

Finally, exempting churches from certain aspects of national laws is in itself a very slippery slope. Some belief systems don't favor medical treatment, yet the government will step in and force treatment of a child who would die otherwise. I could go on and on about acceptable things in the Bible that modern society eschews.

Pablo - it's still telling the Church that they have to support something that they're totally against. This "compromise" isn't a compromise at all, it's just stating that "you're not paying for it, the person you're paying is paying for it." It's ridiculous. It's like taking a recovered alcoholic to the bar that's against drinking and telling him "you're not going to pay for the booze, we're just going to split the tab equally and I'll pay for the booze." It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

February 14th, 2012, 5:14 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9967Location: Dallas

Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo - it's still telling the Church that they have to support something that they're totally against. This "compromise" isn't a compromise at all, it's just stating that "you're not paying for it, the person you're paying is paying for it." It's ridiculous. It's like taking a recovered alcoholic to the bar that's against drinking and telling him "you're not going to pay for the booze, we're just going to split the tab equally and I'll pay for the booze." It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

All organizations are required to offer health plans and those plans must offer contraception, etc. This might make the leaders of the church angry, but when you look at the actions of their members it wouldn't make sense not to offer this sort of coverage when they are in fact, in great numbers, practicing many different forms of ccontraception.

So you forgot to mention in your analogy the recovered alcoholic might not be drinking a six pack every day, he is just downing four beers each night at the bar. Since he is still drinking, he should chip in on the bar tab.

But calling us "Obamabots" and referencing the Nazis? I'm really (seriously) beginning to wonder if Sly's persona on the off topic forums has become a big joke. Like Stephen Colbert or something.

February 15th, 2012, 1:26 am

njroar

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3229

Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom

Pablo wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo - it's still telling the Church that they have to support something that they're totally against. This "compromise" isn't a compromise at all, it's just stating that "you're not paying for it, the person you're paying is paying for it." It's ridiculous. It's like taking a recovered alcoholic to the bar that's against drinking and telling him "you're not going to pay for the booze, we're just going to split the tab equally and I'll pay for the booze." It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

All organizations are required to offer health plans and those plans must offer contraception, etc. This might make the leaders of the church angry, but when you look at the actions of their members it wouldn't make sense not to offer this sort of coverage when they are in fact, in great numbers, practicing many different forms of ccontraception.

So you forgot to mention in your analogy the recovered alcoholic might not be drinking a six pack every day, he is just downing four beers each night at the bar. Since he is still drinking, he should chip in on the bar tab.

A recovering alcoholic isn't going to drink, period. I think wjb's got the right idea but probably worded it wrong. The analogy is you and a recovering alcoholic are out at a restaurant. You say you're splitting the bill 50% and he orders food, and you order food and drinks, then he ends up paying for a portion of the drinks that he didn't want. Its a 50-50 split, but you knew he wasn't going to drink, so he ends up paying for a portion of the drinks that he never had.

Also, all organizations aren't required to offer health plans. Its a service they offer their employees. Obamacare mandates that they offer plans or pay a fine. Now they have to offer plans with ideals that they disagree with also or get fined more. Its going to end up cheaper to offer no plan and take the initial fine. It doesn't matter what the actions of its members are. That is irrelevant. The members aren't the ones paying for the service.

It is just like the argument that we need this so more babies don't end up living off the government. This isn't a welfare program, its a program for people who have a job. They can afford contraceptives on thieir own. They don't need everything covered by insurance. Contraceptives make a profit, they are a product. Its a free-market idea, not an insurance item.

Yes, Abortion has been legal for 40 years, but the government isn't allowed to fund or pay for them. They've been trying to squeeze it in and that is what the fight is about. If you allow them to mandate this, then it opens the door to allowing them to start funding abortions. Saying that the insurance companies are paying for it (but raising rates to cover it) is another ploy to allow the same result in the abortion funding issue. Its a staged process. You might find little wrong with one stage of it, but what it allows later is where the real issues start popping up. There is a reason that government is limited, and too much power given, even in things that you think are good ideas, end up being used for not so good ideas later.